Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Cafardo: Sox "in on" Dan Haren


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
111 replies to this topic

#1 Corsi


  • isn't shy about blowing his wad early


  • 9809 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:03 AM

Red Sox one of several teams in on Dan Haren.

https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/263997435599265793
link to tweet

Expected to be traded by Friday.

#2 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3577 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

It's tough to find anything positive in Haren's trends over the last 4 years. SwStr% down, contact% up. His FB velocity dovetailed by 2 mph last year, so about the best you can hope for is that he had a minor injury that plagued him which should be cured by some offseason rest and strengthening (although it's been slowly trending downwards for years).

If the Angels would pay one-third to half his 2013 and take back a mediocre prospect (similar to the Santana deal), he'd be a nice flier (maybe he'll rebound to a 3-4 WAR player), but if they want anything of substance back (or want the acquiring team to pay full freight), then I'd probably pass

#3 yecul


  • appreciates irony very much


  • 14275 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:38 AM

Absorbing short term contracts should be easy for Boston at this point and if they can leverage that into talent, then that makes sense. Is Haren a good target given his peripheral trends and back issues (and whatever else)? Maybe not, but if it's just costing them cash, then perhaps it's worth the gamble.

I'd much prefer acquiring someone like Haren on the cheap and overpaying him 5m for 1 year of service then giving a top FA starter a 5-7 year deal.

#4 Laser Show

  • 3297 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:40 AM


Mike DiGiovanna@MikeDiGiovanna

Would not be surprised if #Angels GM Jerry Dipoto is trying to engage #RedSox in deal for Dan Haren AND Vernon Wells, maybe for John Lackey.


Oh no.

#5 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10381 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:40 AM

Advantage here though is it's a 1-year deal and someone like Edwin Jackson would 3-4. This makes sense to me and maybe you get the luckier version and get a solid #3 starter and hedge some risk with the others. 4.19 FIP still ok and about where Lester was last year and much better than Buchholz.

#6 Doctor G

  • 1899 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:40 AM

Disturbing increase in HRs allowed between '11 and'12. This is poison in the homer friendly parks of the AL East.


Stay away. I'd rather take my chances with Anibal.

#7 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16250 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:41 AM

Would not be surprised if #Angels GM Jerry Dipoto is trying to engage #RedSox in deal for Dan Haren AND Vernon Wells, maybe for John Lackey.


https://twitter.com/MikeDiGiovanna/status/264011862239223808
link to tweet
link to tweet

It's enticing to get rid of Lackey and his almost $32 million, but Wells is still owed $42 million and Haren is owed $15.5 million. If Angels included cash in the deal that amounts to what Lackey would be paid then I'd think about it. But, to take on all of Wells' contract would not be smart. Haren is only for 1 year so I'd be OK with getting him.

#8 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5012 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:43 AM

Oh no.


Total speculation on DiGiovanna's part. I would hope that isn't the discussion between Dipoto and Cherington. For what it's worth, Wells is owed $42M and is signed for two more years. The Angels would have to include cash for the Sox to consider it, I would think.

#9 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3577 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:44 AM

For reference, Vernon Wells has been worth $4.7 million over the last two seasons COMBINED (by F$). He's owed $42 million for the next two years.

But yeah, 10% is good ROI.

#10 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2767 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:44 AM

Total speculation on DiGiovanna's part. I would hope that isn't the discussion between Dipoto and Cherington. For what it's worth, Wells is owed $42M and is signed for two more years. The Angels would have to include cash for the Sox to consider it, I would think.


This. It's not really different than if a Angels fan posted the same dumb idea on a message board. He's speculating with no sources. It's not going to happen.

#11 Laser Show

  • 3297 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:46 AM

Total speculation on DiGiovanna's part. I would hope that isn't the discussion between Dipoto and Cherington. For what it's worth, Wells is owed $42M and is signed for two more years. The Angels would have to include cash for the Sox to consider it, I would think.


Even if the money is taken on by LAA I don't see how this is an upgrade. I don't think it's clear that Haren is better than Lackey with the way his peripherals have been trending.

#12 The Gray Eagle


  • SoSH Member


  • 9396 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:49 AM

Haren pitched injured last year for about a month and was torched. 9 of the HRs he allowed last year came in this period. After going on the DL for the only time in his career, he came back and pitched effectively.

"When he returned on July 22, Haren saw far better results. Over his final 13 starts, Haren posted a 3.58 ERA, giving up 68 hits over 73 innings pitched, holding opposing batters to a .243/.282/.432 line. This looked a heck of a lot more like the guy that held opponents to a .235/.265/.365 slash line in 2011."

Haren would immediately become one of our top 3 starters, and we should be able to pick him up for almost no talent in return and on a one-year contract. This would be an ideal transaction, that would make us much better in 2013 and do absolutely nothing to hurt us in rebuilding for the future.

#13 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28233 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:52 AM

Are the Sox going to be contenders this year? If not, what is the upside for them in acquiring Haren on a 1-year deal? I like the idea of short term deals and players who are looking for something to prove, and if they can get him and restructure his contract to at least get them an option year (with a buyout which protects Haren), then I like it. But just exercising his existing option doesn't do a lot for the Sox.

#14 SaveBooFerriss


  • twenty foreskins


  • 6100 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:55 AM

Would not be surprised if #Angels GM Jerry Dipoto is trying to engage #RedSox in deal for Dan Haren AND Vernon Wells, maybe for John Lackey


I'd take Vernon Wells if they throw in Trout.

#15 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 12080 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:56 AM

Haren would immediately become one of our top 3 starters, and we should be able to pick him up for almost no talent in return and on a one-year contract. This would be an ideal transaction, that would make us much better in 2013 and do absolutely nothing to hurt us in rebuilding for the future.


Agreed. The goal for 2013 is to be relevant while developing the core for 2014-15. If Haren is his post-injury self, he goes a long way to accomplishing that goal if the Sox don't give up an asset they're planning on using in the next core group.

#16 someoneanywhere

  • 3167 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:01 AM

Are the Sox going to be contenders this year?


This question is going to get asked a lot.

The answer right now is that we don't know, and, more importantly, they don't know. They might -- they have some pieces -- and they might not. Acquire Haren and the needle moves toward yes -- kind of, depending on the cost of acquiring him. You try to leverage a deal that doesn't commit you to contender status even if you make it. Because even if you make the deal, there are still too many other moves you have to make, and don't know right now that you can make, to contend.

Obviously, the more money you can absorb, the less talent has to go the other way. But just as obviously, LAA wants some talent, else they would just decline the option and let him walk. A tricky negotiation if you're Ben Cherington.

#17 pjr

  • 454 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:04 AM

Mike DiGiovanna@MikeDiGiovanna
If #Angels find some way to dump Wells this week, would clear way for Torii Hunter to return. Right now, chances of that seem very slim.

#18 judyb

  • 3350 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:10 AM

This question is going to get asked a lot.

The answer right now is that we don't know, and, more importantly, they don't know. They might -- they have some pieces -- and they might not. Acquire Haren and the needle moves toward yes -- kind of, depending on the cost of acquiring him. You try to leverage a deal that doesn't commit you to contender status even if you make it. Because even if you make the deal, there are still too many other moves you have to make, and don't know right now that you can make, to contend.

Obviously, the more money you can absorb, the less talent has to go the other way. But just as obviously, LAA wants some talent, else they would just decline the option and let him walk. A tricky negotiation if you're Ben Cherington.

There's a $3.5M buyout if they decline the option, so it would save them paying that even if they're getting nothing else of value.

Edited by judyb, 01 November 2012 - 10:12 AM.


#19 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7388 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:13 AM

Disturbing increase in HRs allowed between '11 and'12. This is poison in the homer friendly parks of the AL East.


Stay away. I'd rather take my chances with Anibal.


I don't recall anyone mentioning this in Anibal Sanchez discussions but his run support in 2012 was bad: 3.69 rpg, including 4x0, 1x1, 8x2, 5x3, or 18 of his 31 starts getting fewer than four runs in the regular season (and his team was shutout in two of his three post-season starts). Works for me.

#20 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3577 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:15 AM

Haren pitched injured last year for about a month and was torched. 9 of the HRs he allowed last year came in this period. After going on the DL for the only time in his career, he came back and pitched effectively.

"When he returned on July 22, Haren saw far better results. Over his final 13 starts, Haren posted a 3.58 ERA, giving up 68 hits over 73 innings pitched, holding opposing batters to a .243/.282/.432 line. This looked a heck of a lot more like the guy that held opponents to a .235/.265/.365 slash line in 2011."

Haren would immediately become one of our top 3 starters, and we should be able to pick him up for almost no talent in return and on a one-year contract. This would be an ideal transaction, that would make us much better in 2013 and do absolutely nothing to hurt us in rebuilding for the future.


His FIP was still north of 4.5 during that time frame. In fact, for the people who have said "it was injury, and then he was fine..." his first two months were his most productive months in terms of luck-normalized rates (even though they were bad for traditional stats).

If it was an injury he came back from and he's fixed, why did his FB velocity keep sliding at a near constant rate all season?

#21 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2767 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:16 AM

Are the Sox going to be contenders this year? If not, what is the upside for them in acquiring Haren on a 1-year deal? I like the idea of short term deals and players who are looking for something to prove, and if they can get him and restructure his contract to at least get them an option year (with a buyout which protects Haren), then I like it. But just exercising his existing option doesn't do a lot for the Sox.


I think they are if they have a good off-season. But what I think doesn't matter. They absolutely think they are contenders. Unless you think John Henry was blowing smoke, he came out as soon as the season was over and said the team's goal is to win the AL East. Right now on paper of course they are not contenders, but the off-season is just starting, they have holes to fill, and they are under payroll by more money than anyone else.

#22 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5012 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:20 AM

Are the Sox going to be contenders this year? If not, what is the upside for them in acquiring Haren on a 1-year deal? I like the idea of short term deals and players who are looking for something to prove, and if they can get him and restructure his contract to at least get them an option year (with a buyout which protects Haren), then I like it. But just exercising his existing option doesn't do a lot for the Sox.


The upside is having another good starter in the rotation in 2013. I don't understand the notion that if they don't expect to contend, they shouldn't be trying to put the best and most competitive team possible on the field anyway, even if it is a one-year deal. For some roster spots, the one-year make-good kind of deals are simply placeholders for up and coming prospects. For others, call it a trial run. Maybe Haren flops and DLR or Webster come up and fill his spot well enough. But maybe he pitches well, DLR or Webster take a step back and they have a need for 2014. Rather they get first hand knowledge of his abilities and fit for the team than play the guessing game with a free agent next winter (perhaps with Haren being the free agent).

#23 NickEsasky


  • Code Name: Duchess


  • 6842 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:23 AM

If the cost is low you make the trade. It's a one year commitment, so if the team performs well then he will likely be an important piece to them making the playoffs. If the team struggles again then you move him at the deadline to a contender and get a prospect or two out of it.

#24 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28233 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:25 AM

If you are going to sign a guy on a one-year deal, though, why not someone younger, cheaper, and who is a FA (so, you don't have to give up assets, and can presumably get an option year added)? Haren isn't an elite talent; given the Sox numerous holes I just don't see how he's the best fit. If you can get him to restructure his deal to $12.5M this year, with a $3M buyout & $15M team option next year, then I think it's a lot more interesting for the Sox.

#25 ScubaSteveAvery


  • the goats! think of the goats!


  • 7029 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:29 AM

Vernon Wells is a pull hitter, so I thought that even if he's monstrously overpaid and sucks, at least he could use the the wall in left to his advantage. And, if that means unloading on Lackey two years early, then great. But then I looked at his spray chart from last year (courtesy of Texas Leaguers), and outside of the home runs, I'm not sure anything would even make it to the wall:

Posted Image

He is absolutely cooked, and isn't even worth the Lackey salary dump alone.

#26 NickEsasky


  • Code Name: Duchess


  • 6842 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:31 AM

If you are going to sign a guy on a one-year deal, though, why not someone younger, cheaper, and who is a FA (so, you don't have to give up assets, and can presumably get an option year added)? Haren isn't an elite talent; given the Sox numerous holes I just don't see how he's the best fit. If you can get him to restructure his deal to $12.5M this year, with a $3M buyout & $15M team option next year, then I think it's a lot more interesting for the Sox.


How many young pitchers of any value sign one year deals?

#27 judyb

  • 3350 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:33 AM

If you are going to sign a guy on a one-year deal, though, why not someone younger, cheaper, and who is a FA (so, you don't have to give up assets, and can presumably get an option year added)? Haren isn't an elite talent; given the Sox numerous holes I just don't see how he's the best fit. If you can get him to restructure his deal to $12.5M this year, with a $3M buyout & $15M team option next year, then I think it's a lot more interesting for the Sox.

Which younger FA do you think they can get on a cheaper one year deal?

#28 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20864 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:35 AM


Mike DiGiovanna@MikeDiGiovanna
Would not be surprised if #Angels GM Jerry Dipoto is trying to engage #RedSox in deal for Dan Haren AND Vernon Wells, maybe for John Lackey.

Oh no.


Oh no, indeed. Wells had a .682 OPS last season with a .173 ISO and a .296 wOBA. He amassed only 0.6 WAR. On top of that, his UZR/150 last year was 1.7 (1.3 total UZR) so he's only a tick better than a neutral defender, primarily as a left fielder. He was awful defensively in limited time in center. So the Sox would be acquiring 2 years of a well below average player to roam left field exclusively, who has zero bat. There is absolutely no chance that he is more valuable than John Lackey next year or the year after. So the Sox are taking a loss on that swap.

Now add Haren to the calculus. The Angels' primary motivation in trading him is to save the 3.5 million on the buyout or the 15.5 they'd pay him if they kept him. The Sox would be alleviating them of that burden which minimizes his value in a trade. Haren doesn't even come close to making up for the loss of swapping Lackey for Wells. That's how bad Vernon Wells is.

This would be an awful trade for the Red Sox. They're much better off betting on Lackey returning to league average for the next two years. And it looks like SSA agrees with me and provided some visual evidence to back this point up.

Stay away Ben. Stay very far away.

#29 Joshv02

  • 1413 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:35 AM

There's a $3.5M buyout if they decline the option, so it would save them paying that even if they're getting nothing else of value.

That is what the Angels did with Santana - Santana + the buyout $ for an young MR in AAA. I'd expect that Haren + $3.5mm for anything is > the buyout. At that point, it is just competing against other bidders for what "anything" is. (Or decreasing the $3.5mm.)

Haren at one year for 12mm without giving up anything too useful is a solid pick. I suspect I'd prefer Koruda if we are throwing around $12mm, but, heck, get both.

#30 johnnywayback

  • 463 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:36 AM

This seems like a pretty easy call to me. The Red Sox are going to have this money to spend this offseason if they are smart and avoid huge long-term contracts (Greinke, Jackson, etc.). Haren shouldn't cost much in terms of talent. And if the team isn't competitive (I actually don't think we should assume that), you have exactly what the Royals have in Santana: a pedigreed, innings-eating starter who could bring back some talent in a deadline trade.

I don't think I'd want to do this if Wells had to come with, but I would absolutely be in on Haren.

#31 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6963 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:36 AM

The only way Wells is even worth considering is unless someone like Trumbo is coming with him and Haren....and that's seems doubtful.

Obviously someone like Sanchez is preferable, but that will get into a bidding situation and there's no guarantees of anything after the 5th.

#32 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 16250 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:36 AM

Vernon Wells is a pull hitter, so I thought that even if he's monstrously overpaid and sucks, at least he could use the the wall in left to his advantage. And, if that means unloading on Lackey two years early, then great. But then I looked at his spray chart from last year (courtesy of Texas Leaguers), and outside of the home runs, I'm not sure anything would even make it to the wall:

Posted Image

He is absolutely cooked, and isn't even worth the Lackey salary dump alone.


The only way Wells would be worth it is if they took on all of Lackey's money AND included north of $32 million of the $42 million owed to Wells. He's awful as your spray chart indicates.

#33 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 20864 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:40 AM

This seems like a pretty easy call to me. The Red Sox are going to have this money to spend this offseason if they are smart and avoid huge long-term contracts (Greinke, Jackson, etc.). Haren shouldn't cost much in terms of talent. And if the team isn't competitive (I actually don't think we should assume that), you have exactly what the Royals have in Santana: a pedigreed, innings-eating starter who could bring back some talent in a deadline trade.

I don't think I'd want to do this if Wells had to come with, but I would absolutely be in on Haren.


I don't think it's necessarily true that avoiding pitchers like Jackson, Greinke or Sanchez is a smart move. Considering the protected first round pick, this might be a great year to target a player like that. The trick is picking the right guy to give a longer contract to. Haren is a stop gap for one year, so I don't think picking him up would necessarily preclude them from also digging into the free agent market for one of the top three, or a guy like Marcum.

#34 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 28233 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 10:42 AM

Which younger FA do you think they can get on a cheaper one year deal?


Fair point. Guess I'd just prefer the team be looking at options that are more long-term.

#35 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26096 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:08 AM

Are the Sox going to be contenders this year?


In some ways this is a very important question.

In most ways, it's completely pointless. Whether they are going to be contenders or not is not something that can really be determined until well into the season. What can be determined is that they are going to try to be contenders. Adding a decent pitcher on a short contract so we don't have to rely on pitching DLR 35 times in 2013 and don't have someone blocking him him 2014 is a move that makes a lot of sense.

I'm not entirely convinced Dan Haren is that guy, but it's certainly not an unreasonable position to take.

#36 finnVT

  • 1083 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:08 AM

If you are going to sign a guy on a one-year deal, though, why not someone younger, cheaper, and who is a FA (so, you don't have to give up assets, and can presumably get an option year added)? Haren isn't an elite talent; given the Sox numerous holes I just don't see how he's the best fit. If you can get him to restructure his deal to $12.5M this year, with a $3M buyout & $15M team option next year, then I think it's a lot more interesting for the Sox.

In addition to what other people have mentioned, I think if the sox have to give up an 'asset', there's no deal here. This is about giving LAA some token player and saving them the buyout fee. Or at least, I think that's what most people are assuming. If the Sox have to give up anyone within sniffing distance of the Top 20 prospect list, I think opinions on whether this is worthwhile shift significantly.

#37 erfus

  • 1584 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:09 AM

Getting Haren is the equivalent of a pillow contract for a guy hoping to show he's healthy and rebound in value for his last long term deal. At age 32, if he does manage to do that, he could pitch for several more years. He's never been a fireballer and it's not hard to imagine him being successful as a pitcher (vs. a thrower). It's always risky to bet on someone bouncing back from a back injury, but with Peavy being tied up, Santana going to KC, and the fairly shallow pool of UFA pitchers it makes sense to me to pull the trigger on this if the prospect cost is acceptable. Like Snodgrass' said I don't think it precludes them from continuing to pursue other options but at least this way they will have something to plug into the open spot in the rotation. If they manage to land Anibal Sanchez too, I'm fine with that (since I'm still not convinced Lackey comes back as an effective starter or surivives the winter without being dealt).

#38 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 14488 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:11 AM

Haren would immediately become one of our top 3 starters, and we should be able to pick him up for almost no talent in return and on a one-year contract. This would be an ideal transaction, that would make us much better in 2013 and do absolutely nothing to hurt us in rebuilding for the future.


100% behind this.

#39 pjr

  • 454 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:19 AM

No truth to the rumors of Vernon Wells to the Red Sox according to Brian Mac Pherson .
http://blogs.provide...ton-rumors.html

#40 Edelpeddle

  • 273 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:35 AM

I would say Haren is worth the gamble. He's good for 30 starts a year and pitches deep in to games which would be valuable even if he was league average. It's clear that his back issues weren't something that went away in the second half though, his fastball velocity continued to go down.

http://www.fangraphs...tion=P&pitch=FA

That said, once starting pitchers hit the free agent market, there's no telling what might happen. What happens if Anibal Sanchez gets a six or seven year offer from another team? We can't bank on acquiring a player once they hit the open market. Just look at what happened with Jayson Werth in 2011.

#41 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10381 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:38 AM

It's hard to acquire long-term pitching assets but even when you think you have often you end up with something much less than that. If an opportunity like this presents itself, you take it.

#42 DaubachmanTurnerOD

  • 535 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:06 PM

Like many here, I am wary of taking on an Angels pitcher with declining peripherals.

But in this case, I think I'd be in favor of it. It's just as likely that last year's HR rate spike is an outlier as it is an indication of accelerated age-related decline.* Haren has been among the best and most durable pitchers over the past several years. He is always amongst the leaders in K/BB, and as a poster pointed out up-thread, he greatly improved in the second half last year (after apparently getting over a back injury).

One year at $15m, without having to sacrifice much talent (and without taking on the V. Wellsbatross), seems like a great get for the Sox.


*As a separate point, it seems like we have become a bit too quick recently to write veteran players off after bad seasons. Often, what is seen as evidence that age has ended the useful portion of another career, turns out to be just a down year from a still useful player.

#43 dylanmarsh

  • 4762 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:29 PM

Getting Haren is the equivalent of a pillow contract for a guy hoping to show he's healthy and rebound in value for his last long term deal. At age 32, if he does manage to do that, he could pitch for several more years. He's never been a fireballer and it's not hard to imagine him being successful as a pitcher (vs. a thrower). It's always risky to bet on someone bouncing back from a back injury, but with Peavy being tied up, Santana going to KC, and the fairly shallow pool of UFA pitchers it makes sense to me to pull the trigger on this if the prospect cost is acceptable. Like Snodgrass' said I don't think it precludes them from continuing to pursue other options but at least this way they will have something to plug into the open spot in the rotation. If they manage to land Anibal Sanchez too, I'm fine with that (since I'm still not convinced Lackey comes back as an effective starter or surivives the winter without being dealt).


This. Haren's DL stint in 2012 was the first of his career and, despite dealing with a persistent back injury, he posted decent numbers. With Farrell on board and a full offseason of rest/rehab, I really like the prospective of Haren bouncing back to form in 2013. At worst, he's still better than any of the 5th starters from last season and, at best, he's the staff ace.

#44 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6963 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:33 PM

Even if Haren is acquired it doesn't preclude them from acquiring more pitching. Lackey could be moved in a salary swap, Doubront could be moved for a hitter; lots of possibilities when it's only November 1st. If you can get him, get him.

#45 koufax32


  • He'll cry if he wants to...


  • 3379 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:34 PM

Like many here, I am wary of taking on an Angels pitcher with declining peripherals.

But in this case, I think I'd be in favor of it. It's just as likely that last year's HR rate spike is an outlier as it is an indication of accelerated age-related decline.* Haren has been among the best and most durable pitchers over the past several years. He is always amongst the leaders in K/BB, and as a poster pointed out up-thread, he greatly improved in the second half last year (after apparently getting over a back injury).

One year at $15m, without having to sacrifice much talent (and without taking on the V. Wellsbatross), seems like a great get for the Sox.


*As a separate point, it seems like we have become a bit too quick recently to write veteran players off after bad seasons. Often, what is seen as evidence that age has ended the useful portion of another career, turns out to be just a down year from a still useful player.



It would be helpful to check your age theory with actual examples. I am not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious about examples of starring pitchers turning around "age related" downward trends.

#46 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5012 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:44 PM

It would be helpful to check your age theory with actual examples. I am not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious about examples of starring pitchers turning around "age related" downward trends.

I don't think he's saying pitchers have turned around downward trends associated with age. I think the point is that there have been some recent examples of a bad or below normal season from a player being chalked up as signs of age-related decline, when in fact what they were were simply off-years or injury-impacted seasons. Ortiz in 2009-2010 would be a good example of that. I'd argue that Josh Beckett's 2011 season, while not a full turn around that carried into 2012, showed that his off-year in 2010 was not decline as much as it was injury and health related.

If we're talking about Haren and a one year deal, is it such a big gamble to see if his 2012 season was the start of a precipitous age-based decline or simply an off-year in which he was dealing with an injury that eventually landed him on the DL for a month? We're not talking about signing him to a Lackey-type deal, it's one season. If he flops, no long term impact. If he bounces back to some facsimile of 2009-2011 Haren, the Sox come out well ahead on the risk.

#47 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16717 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

It's amazing to think that there is a player and contract out there that makes you say "oh no" to the idea of dumping John Lackey.

I am with the crowd that would acquire Haren if the talent cost is minimal. As to the point in 13, there are several. First, you need arms anyway. Second, a year where you are on the edge of contending seems to be the best time to take some of these risks, and a good Haren (however low the chances) would make this team's chances to contend much higher. Third, wins are worth something even if they don't make you a contender.

That said, if there is a real cost in prospects then no.

#48 nomarshaus

  • 860 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

Agree entirely with smas. I'd love to see this move as long as it doesn't involve a top 10 prospect or Mr. Wells. Very little downside. Pretty much 4 outcomes, 3 of which are good.

2013 Sox turn into the 2012 O's and Haren's good: it's great to have a very good starter. Plus we get a comp pick if he leaves.
2013 Sox suck and Haren's good: he can be traded at the deadline for more assets for the future. At worst he's not traded and we can still get that comp pick if he leaves.
2013 Sox are good and Haren's decline continues: who cares, we're still in the playoffs.
2013 Sox suck and Haren sucks: oh well, wasted money and prospect. But since it's only 1 year of money it could be much worse.

#49 bakahump

  • 4780 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:39 PM

2013 Sox are almost good and Haren's decline continues causing us being almost good: we just miss the playoffs.
2013 Sox are good and Haren blows up in Sept /Oct costing us a Playoff berth or a chance to win a playoff round.

Those are 2 "bad outcomes" that you didnt account for.

#50 Red(s)HawksFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5012 posts

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:48 PM

2013 Sox are almost good and Haren's decline continues causing us being almost good: we just miss the playoffs.
2013 Sox are good and Haren blows up in Sept /Oct costing us a Playoff berth or a chance to win a playoff round.

Those are 2 "bad outcomes" that you didnt account for.


If Haren is single-handedly the reason the 2013 Red Sox miss the playoffs, I'll still take that as a positive long term since it would mean that Lester, Buchholz, Lackey, and the lineup have all bounced back significantly OR the youth arrived early and were all tremendous contributors.

If Haren costs them a playoff win (wildcard play-in or LDS), again, I'd count that as a win overall for the same reasons as above. This team making the playoffs in 2013 would be a humungous positive given where they are right now.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users